From Israel HaYom: The United Nations on Sunday night criticized Israel’s policy towards illegal immigrants, as thousands of them protested in Tel Aviv, demanding that Israel recognize them as refugees and grant them asylum.
Why Israel? (OK, why not Israel; it's the UNHRC after all.)
The UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR) released a statement in which it accused Israel of “sowing fear and chaos” among the illegal aliens who, it said, should be referred to as “asylum seekers” and not “infiltrators”.
The question is: Why would a black person, especially a Muslim black person, want to escape to Israel, a country fellow Muslims claim is an "apartheid" state?
It simply makes no sense.
Perhaps these poor folks are heading to Israel to skew the country's demographics.
Had the so-called "Palestinians" been smart in the 1940s, they would have had peaceful relations with the Jews in what would become modern Israel. By having multiple wives and non-stop children, the Muslims would have outnumbered the Jews and Israel would be just another Muslim country.
Since so many of the so-called "Palestinians" fled the tiny sliver of land that became modern Israel in 1948 to make way for the glorious invading Arab armies that would drive the Jews to the sea, they lost their chance to populate to dominate.
Why don't these infiltrators - refugees, asylum seekers, illegal aliens, call them what you will - pass up up a chance to live in a good Muslim country? A look at the map below shows that they had to pass through at least one Muslim country to get into Israel.
Cubans, even today, use anything that can float to make a 90-plus mile trip from Cuba to the U.S. mainland. Haitians likewise attempt the trip.
In contract, according to the Wikipedia, the Canal is a mere 205 meters (673 ft) wide as of 2010. Granted, that's farther than the average person can swim, but it is possible to float across from Sudan and Eritrea to Saudia, from Eritrea and Ethiopia to Yemen.
From Egypt, rather than travel to "apartheid" Israel, refugees could enter Aza; it would be safer to travel along the Sinai desert at the edge of the Mediterranean Sea rather than crossing the hostile in-land routes, The seaside route would take the refugees directly to Aza, assuming Egypt would permit their transit.
I don't know what language these people speak; most assuredly it is NOT Hebrew.
Another reason, if another reason is necessary, to avoid the racist Jewish state is living area. Of all the countries the travelers could want as a destination, Israel is the most crowded.
Compare Israel's population density of nearly 950 people per square mile to Egypt, the next highest density with only 204 people per square mile. Saudia only has 35 people in a square mile! That's not to say Saudi cities are not crowded, Tel Aviv also is crowded, but Saudia has room for refugees. Moreover, Saudia knows how to accommodate a massive influx of people (for the haj).
If these people are, indeed, refugees - I am not questioning their reasons for leaving the lands of their birth - let the UN set up lifetime camps for them as it did for the so-called "Palestinian" refugees in a Muslim country - not Israel.
Israel is hard pressed to take care of its own, and then to provide medical care for Syrians injured in that country's civil war should get the UN's sympathy and offer of assistance to relocate the invaders to a more suitable host country.
Criticizing Israel for humanely deporting illegal immigrants is unfair, albeit typical of the UN.
